Bush declines NAACP invitation

[conjur]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Bush to Skip NAACP Meeting Due to Hostile Comments

Then why did they previously attribute it to "scheduling conflicts"?

I gotta say I think this makes the President sound weak, and I think they would have been better off sticking to the "scheduling conflicts" ruse. If his handlers won't let him speak to a group on the basis that they have been critical of him, it creates the appearance he is afraid of controversy and dissent.

Another Bush flip-flop???

LOL!!!

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: Perknose
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt went and addressed the NAACP.

President Harry S. Truman went and addressed the NAACP.

President Dwight David Eishenhower went and addressed the NAACP.

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy went and addressed the NAACP.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson went and addressed the NAACP.

President Richard Milhous Nixon went and addressed the NAACP.

President Gerald Ford went and addressed the NAACP.

President James Earl Carter went and addressed the NAACP.

President Ronald Reagan went and addressed the NAACP.

President George Herbert Walker Bush went and addressed the NAACP.

President William Jefferson Clinton went and addressed the NAACP.



For more than 70 years, the President of the United States has always addressed the national convention of the NAACP, the oldest and most mainstream group for African American advocacy in everyday American life.

Of course, they were all men who at least sought on some basic level to include all Americans in their vision of the Presidency, whereas Dubya is a mental and moral midget, hiding behind his handlers and hyperbolic hypocrisy -- uniter not a divider indeed --unworthy to hold the highest office of our land.

Shame on you, Georgie the Lesser!

Even your own dithering Daddy was more of a man and a true leader than you.

Compassionate conservative? Uniter not a divider? LIAR! By your actions shall you be known, little man. :|

Very good! You nailed it. I hope the rat bastyard pays for it in november too.:thumbsup:

 

[tcsenter]

The last thing you would want to do is get people that would vote for the other guy to vote for you.....

lol! The last thing one would want to do is use that funky stuff contained within one's cranium for something other than ballast in acknowledging as preposterous the notion that Bill Clinton would have a chance in hell of swaying a single member of the Council of Conservative Citizens to vote for him, or equally preposterous, that George Bush could say anything to the membership of the NAACP that would entice them to vote for him, except perhaps announce that he is jumping ship, now aligns himself with the leftwing of the Democratic Party, and will sign an executive order authorizing NAACP members to loot all assets of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve, including Fort Knox, if he gets re-elected. And even then they would require that he sign the executive order before getting their vote.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The NAACP claimed the White House letter cited a scheduling conflict. As of now, "they" is the NAACP, not the White House.

PUH-LEEZE! Your feigning of impartial observer is becoming nauseous....

When was the last time Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Mfume, or Bill Clinton spoke to members of the Federalist Society, Young Conservatives, American Conservative Union, or the Council of Conservative Citizens?

The NAACP represents the base of political opposition to Bush's candidacy. There is a difference between principled dissent or disagreement and "hostility". The NAACP's anti-Bush rhetoric has at times been only nominally different from the inflammatory vitriol one might find at a National Alliance rally.

So are you arguing that Melissa Bennett didn't send a letter to the NAACP, citing scheduling conflicts? Why would they fabricate that, when it would clearly be more politically advantagous for them to be able to respond to what appears to be the real reason (that is, that the President doesn't want to appear before the NAACP because they differ from him ideologically)? I'd submit that makes no sense, and you are just presuming the NAACP is lying somehow, although it defies common sense in this situation.

I don't recall ever saying I was impartial - just open-minded, which is more than I can say for the overwhelming majority of people here. Obviously my arguments make you uncomfortable, or surely they wouldn't make you "nauseous" - do you respect me or do you think I'm a partisan flack?

Jesse Jackson and Kwesi Mfume are not, and never have been, elected officials, much less the President of the United States. As for Clinton, I have no idea whether he ever addressed any of the groups you describe - I've never heard of any of those groups myself, for that matter. I tend to doubt it, though.

Regardless of ideology (and, for that matter, regardless of whether every black person feels allied with their values), the NAACP is still the leading advocacy group for black Americans, unlike the conservative clubs you mentioned. For better or worse, the President's refusal to address them (and being the first US president in 70 years to refuse to do so) creates the appearance he is resigned to losing the black vote. It seems to me he should welcome the opportunity to advocate his positions, and, if necessary, to spar with his critics - I know I always enjoy a good joust.

 

[tcsenter]

So are you arguing that Melissa Bennett didn't send a letter to the NAACP, citing scheduling conflicts? Why would they fabricate that, when it would clearly be more politically advantagous for them to be able to respond to what appears to be the real reason (that is, that the President doesn't want to appear before the NAACP because they differ from him ideologically)? I'd submit that makes no sense, and you are just presuming the NAACP is lying somehow, although it defies common sense in this situation.

Interpret and parse all you want. As of now, "they" is the NAACP, not the White House.

Spar with his "critics"? lol! An interesting way to describe one's ardent political opposition. "Critics". lol!

Movie critics must then be "ardent opponents of movies". Anti-abortion activists are merely "critics" of abortion. :roll:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

1. critic -- (a person who is professionally engaged in the analysis and interpretation of works of art)
2. critic -- (anyone who expresses a reasoned judgment of something)
3. critic -- (someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments)

 

[HomerJS]

Now let's see...Bush has no problem meeting with and embracing a racist group with policies to match during his 2000 campain (Bob Jones University). He won't meet with the NAACP because they disagree with his stand on most issues. As a black man in this country what conclusion should I draw from this??

 

[Todd33]

Bush is just reaching out to his base. The base of southern racist, religious zealots. They will salute old GeeDubya through their white pointy hoods.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Who cares...



The NAACP put all their eggs in one basket years ago....keep their 2.5% of the votes; hispanic population is where it's at nowadays. The NAACP is much like the U.N.--both marginalized institutions, per se.

?By playing the race card in election after election they?ve [Republican party] appealed to that dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality,? said Bond earlier this month, speaking at the Take America Back conference in Washington, D.C."


Yea, let's go talk to that clown.

And Bush Only has 31% of the Hispanic vote as of the last polll

And the latest poll numbers show he's getting even less support than that this time around. Its amazing people talk about blacks not voting for Bush. Nationwide in 2000 Bush did not win any majority of any one minority group. That includes blacks, hispanics, jews, and even asians as well. So its not only blacks who don't like Republicans.

 

[DanceMan]

For all of you that say Dubya should not speak because of negative comments, then you should remember that Reagan spoke also under some similar criticisms, and even GHWB, too. But, they still spoke.

Say all that you will about them personally, but Reagan and GHWB at least had guts. You question Dubya, he walks out on press conferences, he uses character assassinations against critics, shifts blame to staffers where it's clearly the White House's fault, and can't testify in front of the 9/11 commission without his VP sidekick. And he has the *nerve* to believe he is the heir apparent for the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

 

[happyhelper]

sayeth the NAACP

The typical African American family had 60% as much income as a typical White family in 1958, but only 58% as much in 2002. Black unemployment is more than twice the rate for Whites - a greater gap than in 1972. One in nine African Americans cannot find a job. White households had an average net worth of $468,200 in 2001 - more than 6 times the $75,700 average net worth of Black households. At the slow rate that the Black-White poverty gap has been narrowing since 1968, it would take 150 years (i.e., until the year 2152) to close the gap"

US still very sh*tty to blacks... just like it's ruler.

Don't let the man get ya down...
Don't let the man keep ya down...


HomerJS, If I were black, I think I would come to the conclusion not to vote for Bush. But I'm white, and I've already come to that conclusion. If you agree with the position of the NAACP on most of the issues, I would guess that you would come to the same conclusion


And I have to add here, that I am in nearly complete agreement with everything DonVito wrote in this thread. Of course some black people (I'm guessing) will think Bush is a jack*ss (which he is) because he is the first US President since ancient times not to address the NAACP convention. How could anyone think otherwise? I think some, but not a lot, of Bush's potential black voters will change their mind because of this... unlike the hard-core unthinking right-wingers who post most on this AT PN forum, a lot of people actually do think for themselves and can change their mind if given enough reason. I also agree with DonVito that NAACP is the foremost political group focused on the political desires of black voters, and that although probably most black people don't agree with some, most or all of the stances of NAACP, that most do see it as somewhat representative of their political views compared to most other political clubs.

I am extremely dubious that the NAACP was a Democratic Party sub-party back in the 50s and 60s, and I think it's an erroneous allegation to call it that today. The NAACP is not party affiliated, but endorses whichever candidate, or party in a given election, that is in the best interest of black people (as the members of the NAACP regard their best interests to be). If the Republicans haven't gotten any support from the NAACP in years and the Republican Presidential candidate is only expected to get 30% of the black people's vote, it suggests to me that the Republicans are not doing much to help make life better for the people in the black race, nor are the Republicans doing much to help the black people better themselves. Go figure, people vote for who best protects their interests. If the Republicans ever decide to give a shlt about black people again, they might get more black votes. Again, go figure.

Since the US has always been a racist country and still is, and since the black people are still, despite sometimes big steps and often small steps, far behind white people in terms of income and quality of education, among other things, I think any party with any sense would try to offer some solutions to these problems in order to get some votes... the Republican neo-con solution - abolish welfare and public education and affirmative action and anything that is remotely helpful to blacks in any way, and increase the mandatory minimum sentences on crimes predominantly charged against black people. Sadly, our racist white nation prefers to say, "that's where they belong" (either poorer than whites or incarcerated) instead of allowing a tiny portion of redistributed wealth to go towards improving urban education, improving the chances of a few to receive secondary education and towards community programs that assist the high percentage of black people who are older than school age who received an extremely shltty education (by comparison to whites) to begin with.


Also, I find it extremely racist and childish and hateful that some in this thread have said things like Bush would get booed off the stage, his tires would be slashed and that he'd be heckled. As though serious political-minded people at a serious convention would behave like juvenile, buzzed people out for a good wild time on Friday night, just because they are black and belong to a black-rights group. For anyone to use such stereotypes is a type of blasphemy of our human species. My species, you bast@rds! Of course those who made such comments made no bones about being Bush supporters.

The fact that Bush in 2000 and all his predecessors in the past 4 scores, on his side of the aisle and on the other, were treated with dignity and respect despite differences of political opinion speaks well of the attendees at those conventions, like they are normal human beings (oh my god imagine that!) at a policital convention, with an interest in being a part of and guiding the government. Anyone who thinks otherwise suffers the self-inflicted mental-retardation and purposeful self-delusion of bigotry.

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Now let's see...Bush has no problem meeting with and embracing a racist group with policies to match during his 2000 campain (Bob Jones University). He won't meet with the NAACP because they disagree with his stand on most issues. As a black man in this country what conclusion should I draw from this??

Bush met with the NAACP in 2000, the same time he went to Bob Jones. I don't believe he has been to Bob Jones since then, so what's your point?


The NAACP sponsored an ad during the 2000 campaign practically accusing Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd. I have no idea why you would want to be involved with an organization that smeared your name like that.

 

[Todd33]

"The NAACP sponsored an ad during the 2000 campaign practically accusing Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd."

And your link is where? Sorry if I don't take your word for that.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Without debating the finer points about the merits of the NAACP, my take is that Bush has symbolically at least, thumbed his nose at black voters. I can only hope that this will make blacks who may have voted for Bush change their minds, and that other blacks who might not have bothered to vote at all, come out and vote against him.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Todd33
"The NAACP sponsored an ad during the 2000 campaign practically accusing Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd."

And your link is where? Sorry if I don't take your word for that.

I too would be interested to credible reporting on this - "practically" sounds like a wiggle word here. I frankly don't believe the NAACP aired an ad that anyone other than a child or slow adult would construe this way.

 

[Helenihi]

A bit of an exaggeration, but still a wildly inappropriate attack ad. Don't know where to download an actual copy of the ad, but the text can be found in any basic google search.

"Background sound: deep, eerie metallic; later fade in low clanking]
Renee Mullins (voice over): I?m Renee Mullins, James Byrd?s daughter.
On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black.

So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.

Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation.

We won?t be dragged away from our future."


This, despite the fact that of the 3 who murdered him, 2 were put to death and the other is serving a life sentence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Would you seriously call that "practically accusing Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd"?

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Would you seriously call that "practically accusing Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd"?

I said it was an exagerration. They're implying that he condones the dragging, or that it didn't bother him, or at the very least equates being against a hate crime bill with participating in a murder.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

I said it was an exagerration. They're implying that he condones the dragging, or that it didn't bother him, or at the very least equates being against a hate crime bill with participating in a murder.

Reasonable minds may differ, but I just don't take it that way at all. I don't see it as an attack on President (then Governor) Bush either. It's obviously promoting an NAACP interest in hate crimes laws (something I personally oppose, FWIW), and it correctly states that Gov Bush is opposed to them, and suggesting that NAACP's constituents contact him. Beyond that I think you're reading too much into it.

You said the ad "practically accus[ed] Bush of participating in the dragging death of James Byrd." This just isn't true.

 

[Shuxclams]

I guess sticks and stones do break bones...... 🙁

Maybe the NAACP should apologize for hurting Mr. Bush's feelings? I mean a good christian man like GWB surely can find some forgiveness in his compassionate heart for a bunch of poor colored people.

And how about all those "log Cabin" Republicans he has all but abondoned in his very own party? I mean there nothing but a bunch of homos so he wont miss those people either.... Maybe those Log Cabin Queers should apologize to GWB and go strait......

I dont know, I am kinda feeling bad for poor GWB....










SHUX

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Bush is just reaching out to his base. The base of southern racist, religious zealots. They will salute old GeeDubya through their white pointy hoods.

So typical of you lefties.. label the base of the Republican Party as Klan Members... Unbelievable.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Crimson

So typical of you lefties.. label the base of the Republican Party as Klan Members... Unbelievable.

Boo friggin' hoo - he was obviously joking, and you're the one labeling people as "lefties." You are awfully thin-skinned for a person who is constantly on the attack.

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Todd33
Bush is just reaching out to his base. The base of southern racist, religious zealots. They will salute old GeeDubya through their white pointy hoods.

So typical of you lefties.. label the base of the Republican Party as Klan Members... Unbelievable.

He said southern racists........ Not like the midwest NAZI's....... Big difference.









SHUX

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Crimson

So typical of you lefties.. label the base of the Republican Party as Klan Members... Unbelievable.

Boo friggin' hoo - he was obviously joking, and you're the one labeling people as "lefties." You are awfully thin-skinned for a person who is constantly on the attack.

Because calling someone a member of the klan is a JOKE? I somehow fail to see how calling someone a leftie is the same as calling them a klan member.. How about if I start referring to liberals as Al-Qaeda.. would that be appropriate in your eyes too? As long as I am 'just joking'?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Because calling someone a member of the klan is a JOKE? I somehow fail to see how calling someone a leftie is the same as calling them a klan member.. How about if I start referring to liberals as Al-Qaeda.. would that be appropriate in your eyes too? As long as I am 'just joking'?

If you're joking, sure. Why the hell would I care? You can call me a syphilitic , white supremacist, drug-addled pedophile for all I care. Go ahead - knock yourself out!

You are just feigning indignation because it suits your political agenda. You're as mean-spirited a debater as there is on this board. This is your right, but it doesn't leave you this much room to be sanctimonious. Cry me a river if your feelings are hurt by one sardonic remark.